The "Post your pictures here" thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just got back from a week in Ireland (Dublin/Leitrim/Galway/Tullamore/Ballinasloe mostly). Just getting round to processing them, but here's a small selection.


IMG_3135_6_7_tonemappedresized.jpg


Slane

IMG_3218resized.jpg


Kittens!

IMG_3295_6_7_tonemappedresized.jpg


Leitrim

IMG_3031_2_3_tonemappedresized.jpg


Kiliney hill on a stupidly hot day
 
James J said:
I really want to try an 85L 1.2 mk ii and see if it fits what I actually shoot. Ultimate in DOF whoring! :D
Click to expand...

Really not a fan of the 1.2

As amazing as it is it just is NOT worth the £1000 extra over the 1.8! It just isn't!

577045_10151783452745261_1250632829_n.jpg


I shot this on the 1.8 on Friday. The 1.8 is perfectly capable, if you want more then get the Sigma 1.4 (which I plan to) which is only a few hundred extra than the 1.8 and still has razor sharp focusing.
 
Holy Trinity is where it's at :p


Side point, I can get by with the 85/1.8, in fact I still have it and I got a stupidly good copy. I could've got the sigma, it was released when I got the L. However, 2 things that made me get the Canon.

1 - the OCD part of me wanted the true Holy Trinity
2 - it is THE 85mm to go for regardless so buying it means I would never have that itch, yes the price is silly high but cheaper than upgrading step by step.

Plus, it is one of the most amazing piece of optics engineering you will find in such small size lens. The rear element alone would make you gasp and **** your pants every time you mount it on (there is a technique to do it). The only other lens I think which has the same aura is the Canon 200/1.8 but that's not made anymore and any that go on sale has had a rough life from the look of things.
 
Last edited:
Not the most creative, just trying out my new 10-22 with some DOF and manual focus.

Going to take it out for a spin on the weekend.

6Asqx.jpg
 
Raymond Lin said:
Holy Trinity is where it's at :p


Side point, I can get by with the 85/1.8, in fact I still have it and I got a stupidly good copy. I could've got the sigma, it was released when I got the L. However, 2 things that made me get the Canon.

1 - the OCD part of me wanted the true Holy Trinity
2 - it is THE 85mm to go for regardless so buying it means I would never have that itch, yes the price is silly high but cheaper than upgrading step by step.

Plus, it is one of the most amazing piece of optics engineering you will find in such small size lens. The rear element alone would make you gasp and **** your pants every time you mount it on (there is a technique to do it). The only other lens I think which has the same aura is the Canon 200/1.8 but that's not made anymore and any that go on sale has had a rough life from the look of things.
Click to expand...

I don't think I'd say the 85L is 'better' than the Sigma tbh, they both have their strengths and weakness's. Same with Nikon 85 1.4G, the only benefit to me it has over the sigma, is it's more comfortable in the hand, it's weather sealed, but it focuses a fair bit slower. IQ is actually very similar.

Tbh, I will buy the Nikon 85/1.4 for when I need weather sealing, as all my lenses and bodies will be fully weather sealed, but I may use the Sigma over the Nikon in good weather, if the Sigma is better to use in certain applications...
 
Last edited:
Actually the sigma, provided you get a good one (I've had bad experiences with their QC in the past), it is a real gem, togs who used both the 1.2L and the 1.4 sigma has said that the sigma produces bokeh akin to the L but with the focus speed of the 1.2 at half the price.

It is a no brainer.

But like I said, mild OCD :p

Plus, bragging rights lol
 
Raymond Lin said:
Actually the sigma, provided you get a good one (I've had bad experiences with their QC in the past), it is a real gem, togs who used both the 1.2L and the 1.4 sigma has said that the sigma produces bokeh akin to the L but with the focus speed of the 1.2 at half the price.
Click to expand...

I did to, with the 17-70, but I don't think it was due to shoddy QC, just shoddy design and manufacturing. Still I don't doubt their QC isn't the best, but then I'v had issues with Canon, Nikon and Tamron also, so no QC is perfect.
I just accepted from the start that I would return the lens for a replacement should it not be perfect, sure enough my first copies AF was off, and it had a squeak, sent it back, second copy was FUBAR completely and behaved like a jack-hammer,



so sent that one back (luckily the retailer refunded all my return postage cost's so I wasn't out of pocket).

Then I decided to switch to a retailer which looked like it might sell higher volumes, and that copy was perfect.

Raymond Lin said:
But like I said, mild OCD :p

Plus, bragging rights lol
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, I'm pretty similar in that regard, just that this Sigma is that good (not just for the money), I'm beginning to warm a little to it's badge.
 
An Exception said:
@James
Would like to see more of the bottom of the stump. Either the crop isn't tight enough, or your not wide enough imo
Click to expand...

Sadly there wasn't any more stump to take a photo of! Was cut very close to the ground. Also I can't go wider as the widest lens I currently own is a 50mm prime lol. Thanks for the feedback though!
 
Graham I'd crop that middle picture to remove the line of the bank from it, just leaving the flowers in it. Will be better composition and a very nice photo in my opinion!
 
James J said:
Sadly there wasn't any more stump to take a photo of! Was cut very close to the ground. Also I can't go wider as the widest lens I currently own is a 50mm prime lol. Thanks for the feedback though!
Click to expand...

I think you miss understood what I meant when I said "Either the crop isn't tight enough, or your not wide enough" .
Firstly, like you say perhaps the stump is cut off short, even so my eye wants to see what's there, even if it's some grass. That wouldn't be the case though if the image was more of a close up of the grain.
Secondly with regards to the 'wider' part of my comment, I was referring to simply the FOV, so you could either backup a little to get more in the frame, or use the 50 instead.

At the moment, the framing neither shows detail or context. There is no 'hero' in the frame imo.
 
I appreciate what you are saying, yet its a salvaged throw away picture I took before I literally sat on it to have a rest. Its doing very well on numerous websites so I can't complain really. Sadly I didn't have my 50 with me as I took my smaller bag with me with my macro and telephoto lens as I intended on shooting squirrels, yet didn't get to see one sadly!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom